- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 12:26:21 -0400
- To: "public-webevents@w3.org" <public-webevents@w3.org>
The draft minutes from the August 7 voice conference are available at
the following and copied below:
<http://www.w3.org/2012/08/07-webevents-minutes.html>
WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send
them to the public-webevents mail list before August 21 (the day of our
next call). In the absence of any changes, these minutes will be
considered approved.
-Thanks, ArtB
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
Web Events WG Voice Conference
07 Aug 2012
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2012JulSep/0005.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2012/08/07-webevents-irc
Attendees
Present
Art_Barstow, Cathy_Chan, Scott_Gonzαlez, Rick_Byers,
Matt_Brubeck, Doug_Schepers
Regrets
Olli_Pettay
Chair
Art
Scribe
Art
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Tweak Agenda
2. [6]Announcements
3. [7]Getting TE v1 spec out of Candidate Recommendation
(CR)
4. [8]Test suite
5. [9]AoB
* [10]Summary of Action Items
__________________________________________________________
<scribe> Scribe: Art
<scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB
Date: 7 August 2012
<mbrubeck> //me having dialing trouble
Tweak Agenda
AB: a draft agenda was sent to the list on August 6
[11]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2012Ju
lSep/0005.html. I'm going to move the IndieUI TF status to
announcements. Any change requests?
[11] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2012JulSep/0005.html.
Announcements
AB: the Touch Events PAG is now closed
[12]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2012Ju
lSep/0004.html. The PAG recommended the WG continue with Touch
Events v1 spec "as is".
... I want to mention that Matt Brubeck's input was invaluable
to the PAG so a Very Big Thanks to Matt and thanks to Doug too
for his work on the PAG!
... I appreciate their efforts!
... any questions/comments about the PAG?
... 2nd announcement: the IndieUI Task Force
[13]http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/IUITF has now had several
calls [14]http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/wiki/Minutes.
... the Call for Proposals ended July 15
[15]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-indie-ui/2012Jun
/0012.html. Apple submitted an input for the Events spec
[16]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-dom/2010JulSep/att-
0106/UserInterfaceIndependence.html. IBM and others submitted
an input for the Context spec
[17]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-indie-ui/2012Aug
/0000.html.
[12] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webevents/2012JulSep/0004.html.
[13] http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/IUITF
[14] http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/wiki/Minutes.
[15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-indie-ui/2012Jun/0012.html.
[16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-dom/2010JulSep/att-0106/UserInterfaceIndependence.html.
[17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-indie-ui/2012Aug/0000.html.
<smaug_> argh, I can't join the call today
AB: it would be really good to get broader participation from
others, especially browser vendors, and in particular Google,
Mozilla and Opera.
RB: I've paying some attention
want to get the Android team to participate
there is some confusion re what scenarios are A11Y specific
versus more general scenarios
MB: I haven't followed it yet
I expect someone to follow when they have some time
AB: thanks for the updates
RB: would like to get something like gesture events
I think there are some important scenarios that are missing
from Apple's input
Just looking at Apple's input, seems like it is more about
A11Y
If maninpuating using touch with scaling, then we will want
to be involved
DS: the TF is coming from an accessibility perspective
dealing with browser vendors and APIs isn't their "strong
suit"
they can learn from us and browser vendors and we can learn
from them too
Would be really valuable to have you (Rick) participate
and start with UCs
RB: it's good to see a concrete proposal
we will try to add our scenarios
AB: that would be great Rick
... if you want to join the TF, please contact Doug
Getting TE v1 spec out of Candidate Recommendation (CR)
AB: a primary task now is to get TEv1 out of CR
[18]http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webevents/raw-file/v1/touchevents.htm
l and that means we need to complete the test suite and to get
at least two implementations to pass each test.
... first, what is the Implementation status?
[18] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webevents/raw-file/v1/touchevents.html
RB: I believe Chrome on Windows and Chrome on ChromeOS have
experimental builds
Chrome on Android has supported it for a long time
There could be some minor diffs
but the intent is to be completely compliant to the spec (v1)
If there are diffs, I would consider them as bugs
MB: the intent of v1 was to specifify what has actually be
implemented
if there were places where implementations differed, we
intentionally did not specify that
I haven't run our implementation against the spec recently
but our intent is to comply with the spec and to change our
impl to match the spec (if needed)
<rbyers> Details on Chrome support for touch events:
AB: did Opera implement TEv1?
<rbyers> Current builds on Windows and ChromeOS have touch
support behind a flag (about:flags - 'Enable touch events'
MB: yes, Opera Mobile implements it
Test suite
AB: the TE spec's test suite is
[19]http://w3c-test.org/webevents/tests/touch-events-v1/. We
have submissions from Mozilla only.
[19] http://w3c-test.org/webevents/tests/touch-events-v1/.
<rbyers> On by default in Chrome 22 - going to beta mid-aug
AB: we also have the Touch events test assertions tables that
Cathy created
[20]http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/wiki/TestAssertions. We
discussed this data on January 17
[21]http://www.w3.org/2012/01/17-webevents-minutes.html#item03.
... so there are questions about what needs to be done; who is
going to do the work, etc.
[20] http://www.w3.org/2010/webevents/wiki/TestAssertions.
[21] http://www.w3.org/2012/01/17-webevents-minutes.html#item03.
DS: we are having a similar discussion in the Audio WG
W3C is trying to do more about testing e.g. sharing resources
across WGs
AB: are you hiring someone?
DS: yes, we are going to hire someone
in the meantime, I can get PLH or MikeSmith to come and talk
about the testing
MB: we added some tests to tip but did not merge them to v1
branch
I can take an action to update the v1 branch
<scribe> ACTION: brubeck Merge touch event tests to v1 branch
[recorded in
[22]http://www.w3.org/2012/08/07-webevents-minutes.html#action0
1]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-94 - Merge touch event tests to v1
branch [on Matt Brubeck - due 2012-08-14].
RB: Matt, do you share tests between Mozilla and the WG's
tests?
MB: the W3C tests are different than our tests
RB: Webkit has some related tests that could be used
MB: Webkit and Gecko tests aren't really focused on spec
compliance
DS: we would like to change that i.e. to make sure our tests
are directly usable by implementers
MB: we do import 3rd party test suites into our infrastructure
f.ex. we do that with WebGL tests
it should be possible to get W3C testharness tests to be
ported to Gecko infra
The tests we have were created as I wrote the spec
RB: wonder if some abstraction layer would be useful here
Can we get one automated test?
If so, then I can see if I can make it work in our test infra
DS: would like to make the tests automated
AB: in other WGs (e.g. WebApps and HTML), a "Test Facilitator"
has been designated and they are "stewards" for the test suite.
Any volunteers for that role?
MB: I have taking that role so I can do that
AB: thanks very much Matt!
MB: I think we have one test that passes on FF and Opera but
fails on Webkit
RB: please send me the details
MB: I think we also have a test that only applies to v2
so I need to fix that
I just ran the tests we do have on 4 browser ;)
AB: so do we have a rough idea about how many more tests are
needed?
DS: I suspect we only have a very small coverage right now
we can look at what other groups are doing
must go beyond feature testing
MB: we have one test file (single touch) that has 17 tests and
about 30 test assertions
we have a multi-touch test file too and it has several tests
with more assertions
I suspect we are about 25% of the way there
AB: given the v1 spec is mostly about documenting history,
perhaps it would be acceptable to create a "minimalist" test
suite
DS: I wouldn't object to that
RB: I can understand that but there is some risk
we don't want implementations to miss important cases
and thus have interop problems
Touch is important now and will continue to be even more
important
so we need to do a good job with the test suite.
DS: as always, we need to also consider resource constraints
RB: agree there is a tradeoff
If v2 is too slow to come out, the web will move on without
us
DS: would like to get Microsoft to participate in v2
RB: yes, would like to get them to help with v2 too
<mbrubeck> Ahh, the identifiedTouch method is implemented by
Gecko and by BlackBerry OS 6.0 (but not by Safari, Chrome,
Opera, or Android)
DS: I have talked to Microsoft about participating
AB: I have talked to them too
DS: we need to review their work for v2
MB: yes agree but we need to be careful about IP issues
RB: would be nice to know why Microsoft won't participate
could be lots of reasons
[ digression about W3C Patent Policy and licensing
]
SG: the PointerEvents versus TouchEvents already creates a fork
in the web
If we could get Msft to participate, that would be great
Otherwise, we can use a shim to normalize
DS: I can approach Microsoft again if people think that would
be useful
RB: yes, I think so
AB: me too
RB: we have looked at PointerEvents
like it more than TouchEvents
SG: yes, that's a good idea (for Doug to talk to Microsoft)
<Cathy> +1
If there is a shim, it would be easier to write once for
PointerEvents rather than twice for TouchEvents
<mbrubeck> Yes, I think we should gather consensus and present
it to Microsoft as an argument in favor of participation
<scribe> ACTION: doug Talk to Microsoft about PointerEvents
vis-a-vis TouchEvents v2 [recorded in
[23]http://www.w3.org/2012/08/07-webevents-minutes.html#action0
2]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-95 - Talk to Microsoft about
PointerEvents vis-a-vis TouchEvents v2 [on Doug Schepers - due
2012-08-14].
RB: the PointerEvents model includes Gesture events
can this WG go there i.e. gesture events?
DS: that raises some concerns for me
SG: Microsoft just changed their gestures
added a new touch action
can do custom gestures
when I say "just changed", I mean June
AoB
AB: we have a couple of topics we couldn't get to
... what about TEv1 tests?
MB: the action I took earlier isn't needed but I could take an
action to determine what needs to be done
RB: I can take a look at the test suite
AB: if you have any comments Rick, please send them to the list
<mbrubeck> ACTION: mbrubeck Make a list of remaining work
needed to complete the v1 test suite. [recorded in
[24]http://www.w3.org/2012/08/07-webevents-minutes.html#action0
3]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-96 - Make a list of remaining work
needed to complete the v1 test suite. [on Matt Brubeck - due
2012-08-14].
AB: meeting adjourned
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: brubeck Merge touch event tests to v1 branch
[recorded in
[25]http://www.w3.org/2012/08/07-webevents-minutes.html#action0
1]
[NEW] ACTION: doug Talk to Microsoft about PointerEvents
vis-a-vis TouchEvents v2 [recorded in
[26]http://www.w3.org/2012/08/07-webevents-minutes.html#action0
2]
[NEW] ACTION: mbrubeck Make a list of remaining work needed to
complete the v1 test suite. [recorded in
[27]http://www.w3.org/2012/08/07-webevents-minutes.html#action0
3]
[End of minutes]
Received on Tuesday, 7 August 2012 16:26:56 UTC